A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive
government funding?

That does not make them socialistic endeavours. In socialism, the government
would not "prop up" defense industries, it would simply take them by force
and force the workers to produce the products without compensating them.

The US government is merely a consumer of products, albeit a very rich one.
Moreover, the "government" is really we, the people. Thus, defense
industries are but one more producer of consumer products that customers pay
to acquire. The government is merely our agent for the acquisition and
disposition of those products.


Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

That fact is what destroys your thesis. In socialism, a "firm" cannot "go
under" because it doesn't exist as an independent business entity. Thus,
communist/socialist governments maintain a monopoly on defense construction
and they don't have to pay either the owners (the proletariat) or the
workers if they don't want to.



And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns?

Understanding that agricultural production capacity is a strategic resource,
that's where.

This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

So? Once again, government support of industry is not socialistic. It's
merely the people of the US, through their duly elected representatives,
choosing to support necessary strategic resources and production capacity.


Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Because welfare queens don't produce anything, agriculture does.


Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Welfare is socialism, which is why it ought to be done away with.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser